Now available from INSTEAD; the USB Passthrough! This electronic cigarette accessory allows e-smokers who sit at their computers for any length of time to enjoy e-smoking without their e-cig battery ever going dead. Rather than using a rechargeable battery, you use the USB passthrough. Just screw in your atomizer, put on a filled cartridge, and plug your the USB connector to the USB port on your computer. At least while in front of your computer; never worry about charging a battery again. It is the perfect accessory for the computer using electronic smoker!

This USB passthrough works with the Instead brand atomizers.

Buy a USB Passthrough today!

USB Passthrough Picture:

USB Passthrough

What if you could have a cigarette without the 4,000 chemicals and toxins? (Electronic cigarette vapor is comprised of propylene glycol, water, glycerin, flavoring, and nicotine.)

Of the 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes, 60 are known to cause cancer. (Studies done on electronic cigarette vapor to date show either no cancer causing chemicals or only trace levels of TSNA carcinogens, which are also found in nicotine gum. The majority of the cancer causing chemicals found in tobacco smoke are produced from combustion. E-Cigarettes use vaporization…..not combustion.)

What if you could have a cigarette without exposing your family and friends to second hand smoke? (Electronic Cigarettes produce vapor, not smoke.)

Nationwide, 53,000 non-smokers die each year from second hand smoke. (Electronic cigarettes don’t produce smoke, they produce vapor. There is no evidence that the second hand vapor is harmful to bystanders.)

What if you had another option? (You do. If you are a long time smoker and can’t quit smoking, try the electronic cigarette.)

For more information about electronic cigarettes visit www.ECAssoc.org.

To buy an electronic cigarette, visit Instead Electronic Cigarettes.

What to get your smoker loved one is always a question that comes up around the holiday season. Do you get them a new lighter? A new ashtray? What about a carton of tobacco cigarettes? Been there, done that. And each year, they say thank you, add their new gift to their collection and continue smoking, whether you like it or not.

This year, try something different. Try an electronic cigarette.

Electronic cigarettes are a great gift idea for the smokers in your circle. They offer the same hand to mouth sensation, which is a massive part of the smoking habit, without the combustion.

What is combustion you may be asking yourself? Combustion occurs when the flame from the lighter, burns the tip of the cigarette. Combustion is responsible for producing carbon monoxide, arsenic, and formaldehyde, just to name a few. It is the products of combustion that cause the second hand smoke that we are all very familiar with.

The electronic cigarette uses vaporization. Vaporization is the process in which at a temperature lower than boiling, a liquid is turned into a gas or a vapor. As this process does not achieve the 1000 degrees needed to burn, it is also not capable of creating second hand smoke.

For more on this, visit our combustion vs. vaporization post.

How the electronic cigarette works:

Each INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette consists of three parts: The battery, the atomizer, and the mouthpiece which houses the cartridge. When assembled, the e-cig looks exactly like a cigarette. By removing the mouthpiece, the smoker is able to insert tiny drops of E-Liquid, which contains nicotine (optional), propylene glycol, glycerin, flavorings, and water. By replacing the mouthpiece onto the unit, the smoker inhales, just as they would on a tobacco cigarette. The atomizer, which is a small personal vaporizer, heats the eLiquid which in turn, creates a vapor. The smoker can then, inhale and exhale, just as they would a tobacco cigarette.

The INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette Kit comes with everything your smoker needs to get started. Two batteries, two atomizers, a charger, empty cartridges/mouthpieces, a very gift friendly tin and carrying bags. If your gift is to a new eSmoker, please consider our electronic cigarette kits with a bottle of E-Liquid as the E-Liquid is the necessary component for creating vapor.

If you have concerns on whether the electronic cigarette is a good gift for your smoker, there is absolutely no harm in telling your smoker your plans. Let them be a part of the decision and honestly, there are some choices that will need to be made regarding nicotine level and flavor and should really be left to the smoker. After all, it is their habit for which they should be responsible for all aspects of. If you have further concerns as to who should or should not use the electronic cigarette, please visit our Electronic Cigarette Smokers Qualifications page.

Many people wonder about who actually invented the electronic cigarette. Most don’t know, while others would claim it is Hon Lik from China. But in 1963, Herbert A. Gilbert filed his patent on a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette. Two years later his patent was accepted. The whole patent issue becomes somewhat complicated when you consider new technology and different designs, but what is clear is that 46 years ago Herbert submitted the idea of a smokeless cigarette to the United States Patent Office. Here is an excerpt:

“The present invention relates to a smokeless non-tobacco cigarette and has for an object to provide a safe and harmless means for and method of smoking by replacing burning tobacco and paper with heated, moist, flavored air; or by inhaling warm medication into the lungs in case of a respiratory ailment under direction of a physician.”

Herbert….I’m telling the FDA you said that.

View the PDF of Herbert’s Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette

Does this look familiar?

Herbert A. Gilbert even got a plug the December 1965 issue of Popular Mechanics for his new smokeless non-tobacco cigarette invention:

46 years later we now have the INSTEAD Electronic Cigarette

The question is ‘What kind of regulation?’

Some opponents of electronic cigarettes have stated they believe those who manufacturer and sell electronic cigarettes are trying to skirt regulation by the FDA. They ask “why don’t they just go through the normal NRT process like the nicotine gum or patch?”. I will answer these questions from the perspective of one company who sells electronic cigarettes.

We are NOT opposed to regulation. In fact one of the reasons we helped form the Electronic Cigarette Association is because we believe there does need to be a certain level of regulation. This includes, among other things, how it is manufactured, how it can be marketed, proper warnings, and most certainly keeping it out of the hands of minors. Some of these regulations are easy to implement and others will take time and help from an agency such as the FDA.

We ARE opposed to becoming an NRT. We strongly believe that the electronic cigarette should be allowed to freely compete with tobacco cigarettes on the open market. As an NRT, a product must be sold in pharmacies either with or without a prescription. NRTs are often more expensive than tobacco cigarettes. NRTs come with a stop usage date…..hence the claims of “quit smoking” which is really “quit using nicotine”. Placing these restrictions on electronic cigarettes create an unfair advantage for those who sell tobacco cigarettes.

I suppose the question is; if adults can legally choose to smoke tobacco cigarettes for as long as they like, why can’t they legally choose to use electronic cigarettes for as long as they like? For those who want to make claims such as “the electronic cigarette helps you quit smoking”, then they should do the proper clinical trials to prove that, submit it to the FDA, and then go sell it in pharmacies as a quit smoking product.

We applaud Matt Salmon, President of the ECA, in this Reuters article when he said, “We understand that to protect the public, some form of regulation may be necessary, and we welcome that. Our goal, nevertheless, is to ensure committed adult smokers the freedom of a clear, better alternative and to prohibit sales to minors”.

Electronic cigarette debates often become heated because both sides feel very passionately. The anti-smoking groups claim this is too much like smoking and say “we just don’t know what’s in it”. The e-smoker says “If I can smoke tobacco, why can’t I vape an e-cigarette? I can choose what is best for me.” Considering the number of deaths tobacco smoking causes, it is no wonder everyone is so passionate.

In order to objectively look at the electronic cigarette, let’s remove the passion from the debate. Let’s consider a product that doesn’t kill people like burning tobacco. Let’s look at the soft drink business.

Soda A is made up of ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (A being some of the worst chemicals imaginable and Z being the minor end of the scale) and has been on the market for a very long time. It contains caffeine.
Soda B just enters the market. It is made up of XYZ and also contains caffeine.

Details surrounding the argument:

Detail 1: Some public health organizations claim they don’t know if Soda B is safe, but want proof that it helps people quit drinking soda completely.
Detail 2: Some sellers of Soda B sell it as soda that you can drink just like Soda A.
Detail 3: Other sellers of Soda B claim it is healthy and that it does help you quit drinking soda.
Detail 4: Although there are no long term studies, to date Soda B has not harmed anyone.
Detail 5: There is proof Soda A can be harmful.

Based on this information, which route should the governmental agency responsible for regulating such products take?
A) Ban Soda B completely, because we don’t like people drinking soda
B) Ban Soda B until a pharmaceutical company proves it does help you quit drinking soda then give them, and only them, the right to sell it
C) Leave Soda B on the market, but crack down on those companies making unproven claims and also provide Soda B guidance to ensure quality control standards are being met.

Seems simple enough.

Why would a government agency have the right to pull a product off the market that has not harmed anyone while leaving one that has, on the market? Or why would a government agency want to determine intended use (to quit drinking soda), for all products containing caffeine, when other sodas on the market are given a free pass? And why would this government agency be in the right to remove something from the free market and hand it off to the pharmaceutical industry?

We don’t know the answer, but one other detail might be helpful:

Detail 6: The government agency for regulating such products, gets its funding from the pharmaceutical companies through an application process so that these companies can release their products on to the market without competition.

Hmmm… Which do you think they will choose?